Mankind is building "Gods"

12012017, 09:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 12012017 09:31 AM by %mindless_detector%.)
Post: #1




Mankind is building "Gods"
Like Sam Harris the atheist says, we are building Gods.
Anyway, it would seem "God" as it relates to artificial intelligence, has been on github since 2016. Thanks for reading. Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network". (See this easy overview) 

12012017, 06:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 12012017 06:43 PM by Amememhab.)
Post: #2




RE: Mankind is building "Gods"
Awful big image spread there. Please resize to ≈500px width or less if you can, else the reader can’t see the whole image, but must use the scroll bars to scan its parts. At any rate, one cannot raise a number to the power ∞. The expression
C^(∞π) is undefined; it has no numerical value. Hence, so is C^(∞π)R^(kπ). If C > 0, then C^(∞p) –> ∞ for all p > 0. If C < 0, the expression is still undefined. If C =0, undefined once again, yet limit (0^n) as n goes to infinity is zero. Using the methods of calculus, you can attempt to evaluate limit as n –> ∞ of (f(n))^n in the cases where the limit is of form 0^∞. This limit may or may not exist in a particular case; there are some important limits of this form, however. If f(n) itself does not approach zero as n –> ∞, then the limit will not exist, as the power will grow out of bounds. Thus in your image, if C is a nonzero constant, no limit of form C^∞ can exist as it grows out of bounds. If you have the limit of a product limit as n –> ∞ of C(n)^(πn) x R(n) ^(πn), you may attempt to evaluate it if it’s of form 0^∞ x 0^∞, if upon reduction you reach an equivalent limit of form 0 x ∞. Of course, this limit may or may not exist. 

12012017, 11:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 12012017 11:25 PM by %mindless_detector%.)
Post: #3




RE: Mankind is building "Gods"
(12012017 06:26 PM)Amememhab Wrote: At any rate, one cannot raise a number to the power ∞. The expression You are demonstrably wrong.
Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network". (See this easy overview) 

12022017, 01:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 12022017 02:41 PM by Amememhab.)
Post: #4




RE: Mankind is building "Gods"
(12012017 11:19 PM)%mindless_detector% Wrote: You are demonstrably wrong...Your error is that C^∞..(R^k..) is not "undefined", as you falsely presented. Negatory! I see no C^(∞π)R^(kπ) in the Wikipedia article on supermanifolds; I see only that this mathematical object is “isomorphic to C^∞ x R(^p) x Л(ξ sub i, i = 1 to q),” where the latter is a Grassmann algebra on q generators. Don’t ask me more about it; I’m as lost here as you are! There seems to be a noncommutative division ring involved. Supermanifolds sway mainly the wide eyes of young smart physicists who examine the wholeinteger spin of bosons and halfinteger spin of fermions. That’s the best I can do for you by way of explication. We’re not discussing manifolds, however, even if a fascinating example is the 3D torus where you can see the back and top of your head and the soles of your feet all at the same time! I spent years earning a bachelor of science in mathematics, Mindless Detector. I hope I still retain driblets of that education 30 years ago. You’re not gonna awe me as easily as you think. ~ “A Few of My Favorite Spaces: The ThreeTorus: Living in a threedimensional torus would be a narcissist's dream.” Scientific American blogs, Dec. 30, 2015 https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roo...reetorus/ If C is a nonzero constant and you keep hiking its exponent, the result gets larger in magnitude. Just think 10^1 = 10 which has one digit “zero” at its end, 10^10 = 10,000,000,000 which has ten of them, 10^100 = googol, which has a hundred of them, and 10^(10^100), the googolplex which has so many zeros (a googol of goose eggs) our observable astronomical universe is too small for you to cram them all in! Milton Sirotta, an imaginative 9year old boy, named the integer 10^100 a “googol” back in the 1950s, whence his uncle “plexed” it. History of Googol MRob https://mrob.com/pub/num/ne100_1googol...lplex.html The constant π doesn’t really matter here. The only way you can pull a finite rabbit of form C^∞ out of a hat is if C is a function of x, and you take limit as x –> ∞ C(x)^x which is most commonly done by writing y = C(x)^x and taking the logarithm of both sides to obtain ln y = x ln C(x) The right side of this puppy, with a smidgeon of luck, may reduce to a limit of form 0 x ∞ which you can evaluate, although it need not. For C(x) must “sprint toward zero” faster than the exponential tries to elevate it to infinity atop Satyros’s mountain! After you’ve taken the log of both sides, see for instance Protter & Protter (1988), Calculus with Analytic Geometry, 4ed., Jones & Bartlett Learning, p. 379, “Indeterminate Forms.” A 0^∞ limit problem, after taking logs to make it of form 0 x ∞, can be evaluated by taking the reciprocal of the function which goes to infinity, applying L’Hospital’s Rule to the resulting 0/0 form. Whee! I feel like a little boy seated beneath the Christmas tree again! Protter & Protter (1988) Calculus with Analytic Geometry, 4ed Google Books bibliographic record https://books.google.com/books?id=jTmuOwwGDwoC While perusing this textbook, Mindless, don’t neglect to flip to the section, “Translation of Axes,” p. 476, which shall launch you on your way toward the coordinate conversions you’ll need for the noncommutative manifolds you know so much about. Yet please, don’t convert yourself from wise Egyptian Nile Valley baboon to silly American buffoon by posting a screen clip with a Wikipedia on those noncommutative manifolds. I never studied them; they’re graduate school stuff many a twentysomething freshface sweats over ere oral examinations for the PhD. And they look pretty damn hard; miserable Amememhab having taken 400mg of ibuprofen for the headache he got just by looking at the beastie in the Wiki. ~ And please, don’t try to lead me down a primrose path on limit processes learnt in fall semester freshman calculus! Go to your community college instead, and take an evening course in calc. It’ll do your noggin a bit of eggnog good this holiday season! As an overaged math grad, I’ve relished destroying you mathematically on this forum, Mindless Detector, but it’s not personal. Most of us have trouble with math; kids aren’t taught it anymore and I’m steadily forgetting mine. I was never more than a student of math; I lack a PhD. And I’m sure you’re a swell fellow despite. Happy holidays, Detector! And stay warm beside the fireplace with cheer, if you live in a summerwinter climate where it gets cold! ~ 

12022017, 05:10 PM
Post: #5




RE: Mankind is building "Gods"
demonstrably wrong... falsely presented...
BOOM HEADSHOT! Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it 

12022017, 09:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 12022017 10:11 PM by %mindless_detector%.)
Post: #6




RE: Mankind is building "Gods"
(12022017 01:48 PM)Amememhab Wrote:(12012017 11:19 PM)%mindless_detector% Wrote: You are demonstrably wrong...Your error is that C^∞..(R^k..) is not "undefined", as you falsely presented. I wasn't attempting to awe anybody.
Signature: I am interested in completing a novel learning model I call the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network". (See this easy overview) 

12032017, 05:42 PM
Post: #7




RE: Mankind is building "Gods"
(12022017 05:10 PM)Herminator Wrote: BOOM HEADSHOT! Ja. So descendeth this thread into inanity! And I bet the headshot decapitating a hapless warrior when his head protruded out the hatch of his tank was an RPG fired at the tank itself. At least the other crew in the tank survived, armored division personnel having not to worry an RPG might hull their tank, yet if the RPG bursts against its side, the fella on the other side of its metal armor plate will get a nice concussion and ears ringing ’til next Thursday. And their tank will have to go to the shop with a nice dent—a plate the mechanics will need to replace. Thanks, Herm, for your morsels of moral support! ~ (12022017 09:53 PM)%mindless_detector% Wrote: It is legal to attribute π symbols wrt to equations, to denote some reinforcement learning policy. Sure, π = 3.1415926535... a mathematical constant, a number now known not only to be irrational, as √2 was so known to the Pythagorean Greek mathematicianmystics of 500 BCE introducing the term “incommensurability” in their written proof, but transcendental as well, that is, irreducible to radicals, unlike √2. π can be plugged in as coefficient in any equation you like. Mindless Detector, don’t you feel like a bodhisattva, resting crosslegged upon a cloud of transcendental real numbers, which “outnumber” their algebraic counterparts? However, recall that ∞ is not a number. The expression 8^∞ is undefined. Sorry, guy, I hate to disturb your tranquil rest, but that’s a fact. I won’t argue about it with you. If it’s defined, then please tell me its value. We calc students may write 8^∞ = ∞ to mean that limit as x –> ∞ 8^x = ∞, that is, any sequence building this limit will lack an upper bound. Dear Mindless, when you utter statements such as (12022017 09:53 PM)%mindless_detector% Wrote: A quick example (by Google Deepmind) of π treatment is seen in the third to last point before the conclusion section in this url. your lack of college freshman mathematics shows plainly to me. Bill Cherowitzo Geometry in Plato’s Academy “Let None Ignorant of Geometry Enter My Door,” University of Colorado at Denver http://www.math.ucdenver.edu/~jloats/APr...10.ppt.pdf If you’re reading Edward Witten’s string theories or his Mtheory without a freshman calculus, then my hat tips to you. I don’t understand string theory, other than as a sort of piano string in which the vibrational modes generate the elementary particles of our cosmos. But let’s return to limit basics. We can write all of limit as x –> ∞ f(x) = a limit as x –> ∞ f(x) = ∞ limit as x –> a f(x) = ∞ to indicate the presence or absence of upper and lower bounds on sequences which lead to these limits. In practice, we usually don’t write out a sequence, but use algebraic manipulation of f(x) or the differentiation formulas we’ve learnt as in L’Hospital’s Rule. Remember that Tasmanian devil? In other words, until you enroll in college and take some math, don’t argue that subject with Amememhab. You’ll quickly sink in the unstable Noah’s Ark if you do. You can, however, argue other topics with me. I know very little about computer algorithms for machine learning, for instance, although I’ve heard of the “neural network” with its weighted nodes. I doubt supermanifolds are involved, yet if they are, please intelligence me regarding it. You, Mindless, have just informed me that computers can now play the ChineseJapanese game of Go like an 8dan in the Nihon Kiin. I can play both Chess and Go, yet my game in both is awful. I have a Chess software on my PC, Chess King 3: “Your coach to improving your game.” I regularly lose to it. I’ll never be a grandmaster. And I don’t know how hane (diagonal placement of next stone from yours, but orthogonally adjacent to opponent’s) works in Go, nor any tesuji to sic on the other player. The Nihon Kiin, Japan’s professional Go league, does know such things, however. Here they are: Nihon Kiin of Japan https://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/english/ I’m somewhat better at Chess than at Go. Experts can play Chess games mentally, without a board and pieces, their memory telling them which square each piece stands on. I can follow the first four or five moves from the opening setup mentally, but lose track of the pieces thereafter. I’ll never reach a 2100Expert ELO; my ELO rating, once around 1650, has declined, probably to 1475, as I don’t play regularly enough, nor study books such as I. A. Horowitz’s Chess Openings: Theory and Practice. I. A. Horowitz, 2015 Chess Openings: Theory and Practice https://books.google.com/books/about/Che...XYsgEACAAJ I wish you a happy holiday season, Mindless Detector. Maybe computers really will outsmart us on some day, dispensing with the very need to have human beings walking this Earth, but I’ll likely be safe in my coffin by then. ~ 

12042017, 10:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 12042017 10:42 AM by muhammad_isa.)
Post: #8




RE: Mankind is building "Gods"
(12032017 05:42 PM)Amememhab Wrote: ... No .. it's not even a big number Is 1^1/2 a number ie. is a complex number a number? He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters. 

12042017, 03:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 12042017 03:35 PM by Herminator.)
Post: #9




RE: Mankind is building "Gods"
(12042017 10:41 AM)muhammad_isa Wrote:(12032017 05:42 PM)Amememhab Wrote: ... 1^1/2 is the square root of 1, which is a number, and definitely is not a complex number. You know what I have told you about math Isa... Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it 

12042017, 03:55 PM
Post: #10




RE: Mankind is building "Gods"
(12042017 03:33 PM)Herminator Wrote:(12042017 10:41 AM)muhammad_isa Wrote:(12032017 05:42 PM)Amememhab Wrote: ... You would think fractions would be pretty basic.... Isa is restricted to whole numbers only...  Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours? 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)